The Program Budget in State Government
| Author | George A. Shipman |
| Published date | 01 September 1961 |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591296101400370 |
| Date | 01 September 1961 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
71
legislative
staff
may
truly
broaden
the base
of
legislative
information.
To
the
extent
that
the
staff
is
political,
temporary,
and
under
the
close
direction
of
legisla-
tive
leaders,
it
may
serve
a
totally
different
set
of
purposes.
The
response
of
the
legislative
branch
to
the
shifting
balance
of
power
and
to
the
expanding
role
of
state
government
is
a
clearly
understandable
one.
Beyond
doubt,
the
changing
patterns
of
legislative
staffing
constitute
the
most
significant
recent
developments
in
the
theory
and
practice
of
state
budgeting.
THE
PROGRAM
BUDGET
IN
STATE
GOVERNMENT
GEORGE
A.
SHIPMAN
University
of
Washington
Contemporary
developments
in
state
budgeting
range
over
nearly
all
aspects
of
budgeting
and
the
budgetary
process.
Notable
among
these
develop-
ments
is
a
significant
trend
in
the
design
of
the
state
budget,
the
use
of
the
program
or
performance
budget,
as
distinct
from
the
traditional
&dquo;administra-
tive&dquo;
type.
The
program-performance
budget
has
in
itself
a
special
significance;
it
also
has
definite
effects
upon
the
nature
of
the
accounting
system,
the
use
of
operating
statistics,
and
the
design
of
program
planning
and
scheduling
tech-
niques,
among
others.
To
the
political
scientist,
the
central
interest
of
the
program-performance
budget
is
in
its
impact
upon
decision-making,
in
the
issues
of
policy
it
raises
and
the
context
within
which
they
are
posed
for
reso-
lution.
The
familiar
administrative
budget
distributes
funds
by
organizational
units,
with
objects
of
expenditure
set
forth
in
&dquo;line
items.&dquo;
In
some
jurisdictions,
this
itemization
is
limited
to
rounded
amounts
for
a
department
or
major
agency
as
a
whole;
in
others,
it
is
extended
to
specification
of
precise
amounts
for
subordinate
operating
units
and
particular
projects.
In
effect,
it
concentrates
attention
upon
underwriting
an
organizational
entity
as
a
unit
in
being.
The
unit’s
activities
are
not
identified
for
review
and
authorization.
The
productivity
of
the
agency
is
not
automatically
brought
into
question.
Emphasis
is
upon
&dquo;inputs&dquo;
of
the
various
resources
to
be
utilized
in
maintaining
a
going
concern.
It
follows
almost
inevitably
that
reviewing
bodies
and
the
legislature
become
preoccupied
with
questions
that
inherently
belong
close
to
the
operating
level
of
management.
Reconsideration
of
operating
decisions
is
invited,
while
the
larger
issues
of
program
productivity
and
program
justification
are
obscured.
The
program-performance
budget,
by
contrast,
emphasizes
these
issues.
Concern
is
with
productivity
and
the
cost
of
an
estimated
level
of
production,
with
&dquo;output&dquo;
rather
than
&dquo;input.&dquo;
The
major
item
is
for
the
&dquo;program.&dquo;
Program
yield,
or
end
product,
is
expressed
as
a
unit
of
activity.
Program
cost
is
obtained
by
multiplying
together
projected
workload
and
cost
per
unit,
both
subject
to
detailed
justification.
Activities
of
more
than
one
organization
unit
or
agency
may
be
involved
in
program;
their
operations
are
blended
together
in
projection
of
program
cost.
The
performance
aspect
of
this
budget
is
a
To continue reading
Request your trial